Declaration of Independence plaque miscredits the author

Students will return to schools this fall here in Arizona and find something new. Last year, Republicans in the legislature pushed through a flag bill-- a bill requiring that classrooms in both grade schools and colleges and universities all display an American flag, together with a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a copy of the Bill of Rights. Only they didn't provide the necessary funding for it, so the schools had to dig into their already thin supply budgets to pay for the new decor.

Now, I grew up with a flag on the wall in the classroom, and don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with the idiots who believe that the way to make people better citizens is to simply force the flag in their face as often as possible, mandating it and then not being willing to pony up the money for it.

However, I do believe that whatever is displayed in the classroom should be factually accurate.

Let's consider what the students may learn from this, if they get bored and start looking at the flag and reading the documents. They may learn that the flag has thirteen stripes and fifty stars. They may learn that the police have to get a warrant, or that they are protected against being compelled to incriminate themselves. They may learn that the colonists thought that being compelled to quarter British soldiers was a justification for rebellion. And they may learn that the Declaration of Independence was written by John Hancock.

WHAT?!?

At least that is the reaction that I had today when I went back to work at the community college where I work and found the Declaration on the wall. Down at the bottom, after the last word of the Declaration, it clearly said:

-- John Hancock

Now John Hancock was indeed a patriot, and he was at Independence Hall when the Declaration was drafted. His name is often associated with the Declaration because he signed it first, and being proud of his calligraphy, he signed his name large. But after that, the other fifty-five men who took part also signed their names. He is no more the author of the Declaration of Independence than any of them. They should put all 56 names, if they put one. But if they insist that there is only room for one, then it still should not be Hancock, it would properly be Thomas Jefferson, by whose hand the document was in fact written.

For a school to put something up on its wall which is wrong may be a mistake, or they may not notice it until they've bought the plaques (and you can be sure if the legislature wouldn't appropriate funds to pay for this the first time, they certainly would not appropriate funds to fix the problem.) I still would suggest that it should come down, because learning wrong facts is actually harmful to students. But for the company that makes the plaque, presumably one of their specialties, to make such a basic and stupid mistake is inexcusable. The best explanation I can come up with is that since schools are having to pay for this themselves, they are finding the cheapest supplier. And cheap is usually cheap for a reason.

But that's our fine educational system, courtesy of our skinflint legislature for you.

So next time you hear another dismal statistic about how Arizona school kids are doing, keep in mind that the legislature is helping them get there, in this case directly helping them get there.

Donald Trump can fly his flag-- on a 42 foot pole like anyone else.

As a liberal, it's always risky speaking against flying an American flag. I'm sure that some right winger, if they read this, will be quick to jump up and cite it as proof that liberals are unpatriotic, or hate America, or some such crap.

If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,

according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.

But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.

Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.

Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.

Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.

The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.

A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.

Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.